Amaral was removed from the investigation in the beginning of October 2007.

Gaspers statements were made on October 24, 2007. Now this raises serious questions about the integrity of the PJ force and amaral.

Did the PJ pass on information to a officer who was retired.

Did Amaral forget to process the statement?:

Why did Amaral get a statement after he came off the case. And what about the secrecy laws.He is buggered now.

Gaspars statements were made in May of 2007. Mr. Amaral was aware of the statement but the British police had not forwarded it to the PJ. Funny that Amaral was removed from the case about the time he requested the British send him a copy of the statement. It would seem the British police did not send the statement to the PJ until after they were sure Amaral was gone. Very strange and seems to suggest the statement might actually be of some importance.

Amaral was removed from the investigation in the beginning of October 2007.

Gaspers statements were made on October 24, 2007. Now this raises serious questions about the integrity of the PJ force and amaral.

Did the PJ pass on information to a officer who was retired.

Did Amaral forget to process the statement?:

Why did Amaral get a statement after he came off the case. And what about the secrecy laws.He is buggered now.

Gaspars statements were made in May of 2007. Mr. Amaral was aware of the statement but the British police had not forwarded it to the PJ. Funny that Amaral was removed from the case about the time he requested the British send him a copy of the statement. It would seem the British police did not send the statement to the PJ until after they were sure Amaral was gone. Very strange and seems to suggest the statement might actually be of some importance.

Looking at it both ways it could also mean that Amaral was fixating on it and the LP knew what evidential value it actually had. The police collect hundreds of statements from people in crimes like this. I would suggest that they had better things to take up their time with.

It is of no evidential value.

I imagine that Leicester police feared that it would end up leaked all over the press. Oh.

Amaral was removed from the investigation in the beginning of October 2007.

Gaspers statements were made on October 24, 2007. Now this raises serious questions about the integrity of the PJ force and amaral.

Did the PJ pass on information to a officer who was retired.

Did Amaral forget to process the statement?:

Why did Amaral get a statement after he came off the case. And what about the secrecy laws.He is buggered now.

Gaspars statements were made in May of 2007. Mr. Amaral was aware of the statement but the British police had not forwarded it to the PJ. Funny that Amaral was removed from the case about the time he requested the British send him a copy of the statement. It would seem the British police did not send the statement to the PJ until after they were sure Amaral was gone. Very strange and seems to suggest the statement might actually be of some importance.

Looking at it both ways it could also mean that Amaral was fixating on it and the LP knew what evidential value it actually had. The police collect hundreds of statements from people in crimes like this. I would suggest that they had better things to take up their time with.

It is of no evidential value.

I imagine that Leicester police feared that it would end up leaked all over the press. Oh.

Statements made on 16th May.

'It is of no evidential value' Are you serious?! How do you know?A child goes missing in Portugal, no trace whatsoever of an abduction. Dogs alert to cadaver scent in the apartment where she was last seen. Parents lie and refuse to answer questions. They make bizarre comments and appear relaxed and happy. A doctor then reports she has suspicions that all is not right with a member of their party. She states concerns that he is intererested in child pornography. However, this vital doctors statement is withheld from the Portugese police officers! Not only that but ANOTHER British health worker declares she recognises the member of the party, maybe as a perpetrator in a child abuse case. Couple this with images of Maddie in make up and posing coquettishly and and a huge warning light flashes up. This cannot just be dismissed. They are clearly being protected. Why? This case reminds me of Jon Benet Ramsay.

I can't answer that because you have read my post as trying to explain away behaviour, when what I was trying to do was explain how the public don't normally see this kind of thing because they're not capable of understanding its significance and get all silly about it.

What does posing coquettishly mean? What make up? I just see a little girl smiling for photos. You seem to be reading something sexual in to that.

ETA, this statement, and the social worker's anonymous tip off do have no evidential value. I know you might want them to, or that you see it as too much of a coincidence to be ignored - fair enough, but what they would act as is pointers.

Being at DP was a member of the holidaying group, and not a stranger to Madeleine, he SHOULD, as SHOULD the parents, have been treated (in a non-confrontational way) as suspects from the moment the police arrived on the scene. The statement about someone imagining he watched child pornography has no evidential value, but what it does do is serve to create a lovely scandal on internet forums.

@vaguely1 wrote:I can't answer that because you have read my post as trying to explain away behaviour, when what I was trying to do was explain how the public don't normally see this kind of thing because they're not capable of understanding its significance and get all silly about it.

What does posing coquettishly mean? What make up? I just see a little girl smiling for photos. You seem to be reading something sexual in to that.

I really hope you're right and the photographs are just a little girl smiling for photos. To me and others, make up can be clearly seen and the ice cream photo just makes me feel uncomfortable. I will not accept any comments on the line of 'you seem to be reading something sexual in to that' as if anyone who questions the photos has a questionable mind. In many of the photos she look sad and I have yet to see one in which either parent or family friends are hugging her, she seems like an afterthought and their cuddles seem reserved for the twins.

@vaguely1 wrote:I can't answer that because you have read my post as trying to explain away behaviour, when what I was trying to do was explain how the public don't normally see this kind of thing because they're not capable of understanding its significance and get all silly about it.

What does posing coquettishly mean? What make up? I just see a little girl smiling for photos. You seem to be reading something sexual in to that.

I really hope you're right and the photographs are just a little girl smiling for photos. To me and others, make up can be clearly seen and the ice cream photo just makes me feel uncomfortable. I will not accept any comments on the line of 'you seem to be reading something sexual in to that' as if anyone who questions the photos has a questionable mind. In many of the photos she look sad and I have yet to see one in which either parent or family friends are hugging her, she seems like an afterthought and their cuddles seem reserved for the twins.

Have you seen their family photograph album, or have you only seen the photographs that have been released, the same ones as I've seen.

In fact you've never seen a photograph of lots of people hugging their children, but you wouldn't presume that they don't. Have you seen any pre-disappearance photographs of the twins being hugged, or post disappearance photos of the twins being hugged?

What is it about the ice-cream photograph that raises your concerns?

You are seeing a snap shot of family life - in the same way that you might watch five miserable episodes of Eastenders and presume you understand the last X amount of years of plot lines with no idea of what's happening to the characters who are not presently on the screen, and with no ability to look at the full picture of characters, their lives, their family time. You see what you are given by the press.

@vaguely1 wrote:I can't answer that because you have read my post as trying to explain away behaviour, when what I was trying to do was explain how the public don't normally see this kind of thing because they're not capable of understanding its significance and get all silly about it.

What does posing coquettishly mean? What make up? I just see a little girl smiling for photos. You seem to be reading something sexual in to that.

I really hope you're right and the photographs are just a little girl smiling for photos. To me and others, make up can be clearly seen and the ice cream photo just makes me feel uncomfortable. I will not accept any comments on the line of 'you seem to be reading something sexual in to that' as if anyone who questions the photos has a questionable mind. In many of the photos she look sad and I have yet to see one in which either parent or family friends are hugging her, she seems like an afterthought and their cuddles seem reserved for the twins.

I feel the same as you about the photos, Marigold. Also brings to mind something Gerry said along the lines of 'at least wev got our family' - sadly, I don't think Madeleine was wanted or loved by her parents. Amongst the first photos to be released to the public were of Madeleine with crimped hair and wearing make-up - it is thought that these may have been taken in the apartment. Not the usual sort of look for a 3 year old on holday.

There is two photos taken in the same place, looks almost like sitting on the bottom of a bunk bed or similar. One with crimped hair (from plaiting, not a crimper) and one with straight hair, recent hair cut, sitting with the twins.

Which room in the apartment do you believe them to have been taken in. I don't recall a pink room from the photos.

@vaguely1 wrote:I can't answer that because you have read my post as trying to explain away behaviour, when what I was trying to do was explain how the public don't normally see this kind of thing because they're not capable of understanding its significance and get all silly about it.

What does posing coquettishly mean? What make up? I just see a little girl smiling for photos. You seem to be reading something sexual in to that.

I really hope you're right and the photographs are just a little girl smiling for photos. To me and others, make up can be clearly seen and the ice cream photo just makes me feel uncomfortable. I will not accept any comments on the line of 'you seem to be reading something sexual in to that' as if anyone who questions the photos has a questionable mind. In many of the photos she look sad and I have yet to see one in which either parent or family friends are hugging her, she seems like an afterthought and their cuddles seem reserved for the twins.

I feel the same as you about the photos, Marigold. Also brings to mind something Gerry said along the lines of 'at least wev got our family' - sadly, I don't think Madeleine was wanted or loved by her parents.

I agree, Autumn. I don't think Madeleine was loved or wanted by her family either. The callous things they have said confirm it to me and yes, that crimped hair... !who crimps a 3 year old's hair?Amongst the first photos to be released to the public were of Madeleine with crimped hair and wearing make-up - it is thought that these may have been taken in the apartment. Not the usual sort of look for a 3 year old on holday.

There is two photos taken in the same place, looks almost likesitting on the bottom of a bunk bed or similar. One with crimped hair(from plaiting, not a crimper) and one with straight hair, recent haircut, sitting with the twins.

Which room in the apartment do you believe them to have been taken in. I don't recall a pink room from the photos.

I see nothing wrong in these photos and I cant see make up either :scratch: I am puzzled people can be so judgemental as to say Madeleine wasnt loved or wanted just because the few photos released dont show what people want to see.I bet if scores of huggy kissy photos had been released these same people would have been jumping up and down whining spin,spin!!!!

@vaguely1 wrote:I can't answer that because you have read my post as trying to explain away behaviour, when what I was trying to do was explain how the public don't normally see this kind of thing because they're not capable of understanding its significance and get all silly about it.

What does posing coquettishly mean? What make up? I just see a little girl smiling for photos. You seem to be reading something sexual in to that.

I really hope you're right and the photographs are just a little girl smiling for photos. To me and others, make up can be clearly seen and the ice cream photo just makes me feel uncomfortable. I will not accept any comments on the line of 'you seem to be reading something sexual in to that' as if anyone who questions the photos has a questionable mind. In many of the photos she look sad and I have yet to see one in which either parent or family friends are hugging her, she seems like an afterthought and their cuddles seem reserved for the twins.

There's a Picture of her Being Held By John McCann's Daugther. There's a PIcture of Her being Held by Her Grandmother to Blow out the Twins' Birthday Candles (so much For the Favored Children Theory). There's a Picture of Her Sitting in a Line with Her Other Cousins Beaming. Why Would They release Photos of Her with Lots of Other People In them? Or ones in which Her Face Can't really be Seen?

The Ramseys were Not Covered Up, the Case was Botched by an Inexperienced Police Department from the Moment they Arrived on the Scene. Sometimes Incompetence is just Incompetence. The Boulder Police were Not Used to Homicide Investigations.

Have you really never seen a three year old with plaits before? You see that as a sign of possible sexual abuse?

Eyeliner, for one. Her hair was crimped, not plaited.

Her hair was crimped, because she had had her hair plaited. Crimping with a crimper leaves a different sort of crimp. more uniform and more frizzed. Plenty of people plait their kids hair.

Why do you think she has eye-liner on? Is it because she has dark lashes? My son looks like he has eye-liner on in photos - he doesn't though, he's just lucky to have dark lashes.

If you see sexual abuse in dark lashes and fuzzy hair then I despair.

It is Worth Noting that Amelie McCann has the Very same Dark Lashes and you can See them Prominetly in the Photos of the McCanns ariving Back in England.

If it's Eye Liner and Mascara it's Rather Artfully Applied -- Like a Professional Makeup Artist - Women wish They Got Theirs to Look so Natural.

If it turns out that the Gaspars were right and the dogs were right, will you despair for what Madeleine possibly went through before she died and will you feel any quilt for trying to justify the evidence collected so far?

While things like this are still up in the air then I cannot contemplate giving anyone the benefit of the doubt as you can.

I would rather be suspicious and wrong than try to justify their actions and be wrong.

@aliberte2 wrote:The Ramseys were Not Covered Up, the Case was Botched by an Inexperienced Police Department from the Moment they Arrived on the Scene. Sometimes Incompetence is just Incompetence. The Boulder Police were Not Used to Homicide Investigations.

Indeed and the Ramseys were persecuted for over 10years by people on the internet and the media as child killers,much was made of their lifestyle,clothes,behaviour etc and yet they have been exonerated as foreign DNA was eventually found.

@aliberte2 wrote:The Ramseys were Not Covered Up, the Case was Botched by an Inexperienced Police Department from the Moment they Arrived on the Scene. Sometimes Incompetence is just Incompetence. The Boulder Police were Not Used to Homicide Investigations.

Indeed and the Ramseys were persecuted for over 10 years by people on the internet and the media as child killers, much was made of their lifestyle ,clothes, behaviour etc and yet they have been exonerated as foreign DNA was eventually found.

re: "Exonerated as foreign DNA was eventually found".

The 'foreign DNA' found exonerated no-one.

The local police chief might have said the Ramseys were exonerated.

But most Americans don't think they were exonerated.

Not with a garotted dead six-year-old found in their cellar two weeks after they screamed 'abduction'. And not after a ransom note for $118,000 was found, matching a sum the Ramseys had just acquired, and probably written in Mrs Ramsey's handwriting.

Fortunately, powerful helpers in their ring of child-abusers got them out of jail.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...

Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM, retired Met Commissioner: "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."